They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex marria

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und

The only absurdity here is your rebuttal. I will re-state my position. I support marriage equality and I don't care who you ****, do "bolivian marching powder" with, or marry. It's none of my business.

I am also a strong belliever in this government is too large, to convoluted, and too complicated. One such way of simplification it to remove who the government can and can't say who is married, and call EVERYONE a civil union.

This does a couple things. one it takes the wind out of anti-gay marriage types, (100% of course not but it's a HUGE chunk). now you have "civil unions". states CANNOT deny ones partner from seeing thier loved ones as it would then violate the 14th amendment.

It's really quite simple, and this fascist style "BELEIEVE AS WE 100% or even though you support gay marriage, you are a homophobe bigot!!!!!" nonsense is the same intolerant crap, you are suppoosedly against.

Your suggestion is akin to sheldons suggestion to build a new Jewish holy land in the middle of Mexico, good intentioned yet ignorant of the complexities of the issue.

The legal arguments concerning same sex marriage bans don't change by changing the name of legal marriage to civil unions, and the government could still restrict it in the same ways it currently does, even those that restrict it unfairly.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und

it is about winning. the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, why get tax breaks/penalties because you decided to "marry" someone?

Because people want those breaks given, just as there are tax breaks given for children, for taking care of other family members, for giving to charity, for doing something good for the environment, and for so many other things. Its no more unfair than tax breaks of other kinds.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und

*sigh* I'm sorry I am looking at solutions, compromises, and ways to move forward. Like I said, I support gay marriage and don't care what you call it. I can't repeat that long enough.

I've been advocating this for years, I am a libertarian. who you marry is none of my business, and getting government out of your businsess here to me is the libertarian solution to this inequality we have.

It also alludes to preveious posts for that. There was another forum, I can't remember now, as far back as 2004 I was advocating this. (my entire online forum life).

so on this forum, easily proven since 2010 here (5 years), you see this is what I advocated, if you feel the need you can search further and find for the last 11 years, I've advocated the same online.

I will agian repeat, I don't care what you call it. My position is a solution to get everyone the equal rights they deserve.

I agree, I think changing it all to civil unions takes a big blow to the anti-gay marriage types. That's all I've been saying. remove the government, let them "log" "marrigaes", "civil unions" whatever, but have it have no bearing on anything other than that logging.

We're moving forward just fine. The SCOTUS has the issue. Barring some serious meltdown of the Court, same sex marriage restrictions/bans will all be struck down as unconstitutional this year.

The government is involved because people want them involved, otherwise they wouldn't get legally married at all.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Originally Posted by roguenuke

Because people want those breaks given, just as there are tax breaks given for children, for taking care of other family members, for giving to charity, for doing something good for the environment, and for so many other things. Its no more unfair than tax breaks of other kinds.

Of course it is. Getting married, unlike having a child or assuming responsibility for a sick or elderly relative, does not impact upon your financial wellbeing...well, it does, but in the opposite direction, likely making your finances easier, not more difficult. There is no economic argument for giving away money to newlyweds, it's a political gesture, saying we approve of your life-choice, we want people to marry. Those are ideological considerations, even when those benefits are rolled out to same-sex couples. Hence fairness is not a consideration and such tax breaks are wholly unfair on those who are single, or in a domestic relationship that isn't recognised as 'marriage'.

"The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

"Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Originally Posted by roguenuke

Your suggestion is akin to sheldons suggestion to build a new Jewish holy land in the middle of Mexico, good intentioned yet ignorant of the complexities of the issue.

The legal arguments concerning same sex marriage bans don't change by changing the name of legal marriage to civil unions, and the government could still restrict it in the same ways it currently does, even those that restrict it unfairly.

the pushback to gay marriage, comes MOSTLY from the word, you remove the word, and you do a huge blow to the enemies of freedom and equal liberty, That is my only point on this.

Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Originally Posted by roguenuke

Because people want those breaks given, just as there are tax breaks given for children, for taking care of other family members, for giving to charity, for doing something good for the environment, and for so many other things. Its no more unfair than tax breaks of other kinds.

It should be removed. taxes should not change based on who you shack up with.

Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und

*sigh* I'm sorry I am looking at solutions, compromises, and ways to move forward. Like I said, I support gay marriage and don't care what you call it. I can't repeat that long enough.

I've been advocating this for years, I am a libertarian. who you marry is none of my business, and getting government out of your businsess here to me is the libertarian solution to this inequality we have.

It also alludes to preveious posts for that. There was another forum, I can't remember now, as far back as 2004 I was advocating this. (my entire online forum life).

so on this forum, easily proven since 2010 here (5 years), you see this is what I advocated, if you feel the need you can search further and find for the last 11 years, I've advocated the same online.

I will agian repeat, I don't care what you call it. My position is a solution to get everyone the equal rights they deserve.

I agree, I think changing it all to civil unions takes a big blow to the anti-gay marriage types. That's all I've been saying. remove the government, let them "log" "marrigaes", "civil unions" whatever, but have it have no bearing on anything other than that logging.

I'll take your word for it, and am glad that you have been consistent.

I still think there are plenty of people that have only started talking about taking govt out of marriage once SSM became a reality.

At any rate, I don't think we're going to get rid of the word marriage or the current institution with its many benefits - and responsibilities - for married couples. What we can do is make it open to all couples, not just opposite sex couples. and luckily that is happening quickly

Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und

the pushback to gay marriage, comes MOSTLY from the word, you remove the word, and you do a huge blow to the enemies of freedom and equal liberty, That is my only point on this.

I don't believe that. The anti-gay marriage types use that argument of "the word" as a cover. Many are against anything that even resembles marriage for SS couples. In fact, it's written into the Constitutional bans.

For example: "Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect. " Georgia

"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." -Ohio

And your notion about getting "government out of marriage" just isn't going to happen. It isn't. So continuing to push it as a viable option is just a waste of time.
You may as well be arguing about the weight and dimensions of unicorns.

Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Originally Posted by paddymcdougall

I'll take your word for it, and am glad that you have been consistent.

Thank you.

I still think there are plenty of people that have only started talking about taking govt out of marriage once SSM became a reality.

A good JKD man does not oppose force or give way completely. He is pliable as a spring; he is the complement and not the opposition to his opponent’s strength.= Bruce lee

if that's it, take it, be like water, in the end, they are giving in and coming to your side without, (in thier mind) compromising thier beliefs.

At any rate, I don't think we're going to get rid of the word marriage or the current institution with its many benefits - and responsibilities - for married couples. What we can do is make it open to all couples, not just opposite sex couples. and luckily that is happening quickly

I agree, the ruling class needs us to be completely divided and side taking in order to maintain it's power, this is one of the biggest issues they do it with.